I think Obama’s engagement policy is in deep trouble. And that is not only because it is morally problematic for the United States to reach out to the Iranian regime under the current circumstances. There is also the matter of receptivity on the Iranian side. The faction that has just seized total control of Iran has long been hostile to the United States, and it has continued to signal its hostility by attempting to pin the current unrest on Western interference. We have been given no reason to think that the hard-liners around Khamenei and Ahmadinejad believe it is in their interest to negotiate away their nuclear program, to give up the external bogeyman they can conjure so long as relations with the United States remain distant and antagonistic, or to open Iran to Western economic, political, and cultural influences that could erode their power. To be sure, large parts of Iran’s political establishment, and most of its populace, support engagement. But those people are being tortured in prison, threatened by mysterious phone callers, and beaten on the streets. To pursue engagement under these circumstances could turn out to be the worst of all worlds—both cynical and futile.

On the other hand, the alternatives to engagement are even worse. Suppose the West opts instead to isolate Iran, and Iran, under leadership that is manifestly less pragmatic, more ruthless, and more impervious to world opinion than ever before, makes swift progress in its nuclear program. What can we imagine would be the response of the United States, or of Israel, then? What should it be?